Florida is one of the fascist states of America who passed a law that allows law enforcement and the courts to determine when someone might be a risk to themselves and others. As part of that law, central government’s police (police state) for no reason other than someone made a determination will enter your home or violate your person and confiscate your gun(s).

According to Guns America, Pinellas County in western Florida has assembled a 5-man confiscation team at the Sheriff’s Office.

What could possibly go wrong?

But they and nearly every American alive today have it ALL wrong. The Pinellas County Sheriff is quoted as saying, “It’s a constitutional right to bear arms and when you are asking the court to deprive somebody of that right we need to make sure we are making good decisions, right decisions and the circumstances warrant it.”

Not very reassuring…unless you are a fascist or a totalitarian in which case you are eager to give up all your freedoms in order to further empower the central government, which, by the way, doesn’t give one iota about your freedoms or rights.

This is insanity!

In case you have forgotten…and most have…the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is nothing in there about risk protection orders and other “reasonable” amendments to a God-given right to self-protection. This government and the people in it are so perverted in all sense of common sense and decency have it all backward. When it comes to murdering babies, the law is “settled.” When it comes to a right, unquestionably defined within the Constitution, the law is unsettled and ever-changing to meet the growing power grabbing of a fascist government (Fascism ALWAYS precedes communism.)

But don’t misunderstand. This Risk Protection Order doesn’t just target the Second Amendment. Florida already has attacked so-called free speech – something America abandoned several years ago and nobody has caught on yet.

So, if a sheriff and/or a judge somewhere doesn’t like what you said and thinks that statement is putting SOMEONE or SOMETHING “at risk” then all rights are abandon and any guns will be confiscated…by brute force evidently. Bring in the Confiscation Team and let’s kick some ass!

One attorney is so ignorant of a person’s right to self-protection that in her defense of a client labeled “at risk” because a judge didn’t like what they said, believes the law needs to rewritten so that it only targets gun owners. Who needs enemies when you have stupid lawyers?

There is no hope!

The Pinellas County Sheriff says “he understands the constitutional rights that are at stake here.” NO HE DOESN’T!! He understands nothing. All he understands is that as head of a law enforcement organization that exists within a police state, he is eager to have more and more power to knock the people down and tread on them.

These risk protection orders are nothing but smoke and mirrors because this perverted, immoral society does not want to address the reasons why sick people desire to go out and kill other people.

There is no hope!

And we can also thank the many faux Second Amendment groups who have pushed for this fascist rule. May they have the new laws shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.

From Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association:

Governor Steve Bullock

Helena, Montana

Dear Governor Bullock,

Just like you “support” the Second Amendment, we support the First Amendment, but as with you and the Second, we support the First Amendment with reasonable and commonsense restrictions.

Because of these commonsense restrictions, you are no longer allowed to speak on government property, including within 1,000 feet of schools and buildings occupied by any level of government. That would be just too dangerous. You are also not allowed to speak in any other public place unless you have a government permit to do so. Such a permit will only be granted if you have satisfactorily completed an approved training course about how to comply with writing and speech restrictions – how to use your rights safely.

You are no longer allowed to use amplification to enhance your speech, as such amplification is considered to be “high capacity” or “assault speech.” No microphones. You are no longer allowed to use any electronic means to write, record, or transmit your speech, since those mechanisms were not yet invented when the First Amendment was ratified. Being a smart and capable guy, we’re sure you can get by with a pen made from a turkey feather and the volume and reach of your natural voice.

Another commonsense restriction will be what you may write or talk about. We will have a committee available to review any proposed writing or proposed speech from you, in advance. This committee will research your past writings and speech, and the proposed writing or speech, looking for any abuse or history of abuse. If there is any such abuse or history, the committee will not approve your writing or speech. If you attempt to write or speak without this advanced approval, you may be prosecuted for a federal crime, bankrupted with legal costs, put in a federal prison, and lose all of your rights. Oh, by the way, Republicans will appoint this review committee.

Oh, and there will be a ten-day waiting period after your writing or speech has been approved by the committee before you will be allowed to share the writing with others or deliver the speech. You may have composed the writing or speech in a moment of passion, and you may reconsider your intent or language after you’ve had a few days to cool down.

You will be allowed to speak to one person at a time, in a private setting, as long as you do not disturb others and the content of your speech is approved in advance. And, you will be allowed to write as much as you want, as long as the writing is with a quill pen, is approved in advance by the committee, is reproduced only manually, and is carried only by foot or horse power, all following the ten-day cooling down period. We will allow so much, for now, because we fully support your First Amendment rights and because we do not wish to be unduly restrictive.

We hope you understand that these commonsense restrictions are best for everyone, for the public good. You aren’t opposed to the public good and everyone, are you?

If these commonsense restrictions don’t solve whatever problems may be apparent or imagined, we will need to look at other possible restrictions. We don’t really want to take away your First Amendment, but everyone demands that we solve the terrible problem of First Amendment abuse and solve it now. Surely we must all bow to the majority of public opinion in this, don’t you agree?

It seems Minnesota has a law the prohibits voters from wearing any “‘political’ apparel at a polling place.” This is further defined as, “…any t-shirt, button, or other item that identifies any political issue and even any organization that is known to take positions on political issues. Voters who wear AFL-CIO or NRA caps are told they must remove them before they can enter the polling place and vote. If they refuse, election officials take their names for possible prosecution and penalties up to $5,000. Lower courts upheld this law on the theory that government can ban all expression, besides voting, at a polling place.” (emboldening added)<<<Read More>>>

I was sent a link to an article at Powerline, where the author made a valiant attempt to inject some semblance of rational discourse into a topic that never experiences anything close to rationality – school shootings.

To prove this point, simply read the comments that follow the article. I’d like to take a moment and address one of them. A commenter writes: “I suggest a trade-off: Conservatives support the deletion of the 2nd amendment in return for an upgraded 1st amendment which restores prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, and makes the graphic depiction of murder on TV, film, the Internet and video games illegal.”

I immediately wondered what world this person must live in. I know where I live and it’s seldom in and of this world but I think my reasoning skills are a tad bit better. Let me explain, even though our existence has driven us to a point where an explanation is actually needed.

This person suggests that “conservatives” support the deletion of the Second Amendment as part of a trade-off. I’m wondering why liberals, who have and will continue to enjoy their Second Amendment right aren’t included in this obvious ignorant attack? I guess I just didn’t know only “conservatives” support the Second Amendment.

Try, if possible, to understand the trade-off. Before I comment further, I hope that it is obvious that this person fails miserably in understanding the First and Second Amendments or even holding any discernment as to the difference between a God-given right, a Government-given privilege, and the freedom to make choices according to your morals and/or ideology.

The commenter suggests an “upgrade” to the First Amendment in exchange for a repeal of the Second Amendment. It is unbelievable, to the unlearned I suppose, that a person views a reduction in their rights as an upgrade. Once upon a time a right, in the context of the Bill of Rights, was constructed with the idea that a person was free to exercise that right while at the same time not infringing on the choices of others in exercising any right or choosing not to. The comment above surely delineates a lost understanding of something so basic.

For those in need, here is the First Amendment as it is written: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The “upgrade” is said to include: “…restores prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, and makes the graphic depiction of murder on TV, film, the Internet and video games illegal.”

For clarification, we the people and We The People, have butchered the First Amendment but not nearly to the extent of the Second. However, people mostly have the right to pray or read the Bible any place and at any time they so CHOOSE. I have yet to find written in the Bible where Yahweh says that prayer must be done openly in a public arena, in a formal and structurally organized way and included in the curriculum of public schools. In other words, because Government dictates that praying and Bible reading are not part of the public school curriculum, any student, for the most part, and while not disturbing others in their quest for an education, can pray or read their Bible if they so CHOOSE. I’ve never understood those that think they are denied their “right” to their established “religion” because prayer and Bible reading are not “REQUIRED.”

As much as what movies, music, video games, Internet, and all is a reflection of the decadent and immoral American society as a whole, last time I checked, a parent has a right to control what their children are allowed to see and listen to. Parents fail miserably in this but is that a good enough reason to pretend that making this crap illegal, in other words destroying another right of a person to CHOOSE, the right answer? Is that why the person called this an “upgrade.” Up is down, down is up…etc.

Supposedly, once we become “of age” we can CHOOSE to see and hear what we wish. As the Scriptures say: Bring up a child in the way in which he/she should go and he/she shall never depart from it. As much as some would desire, it is still quite difficult to control what a person thinks…short of lobotimization.

I would suppose that in this person’s mind, their “upgrade” was some kind of carrot at the end of a stick. It doesn’t work that way. Rights are about CHOICE not about being forced to have to abide by someone’s ideology, including governments’.

The Second Amendment doesn’t force people to pick up a gun and use it. The Second Amendment is about giving any lawful citizen of this country the option to do that if they CHOOSE. If I believe that Government is a serious threat to my existence, as well as my freedom to make choices, anyone mandating to me that the only gun I can own is a single shot .22 caliber rifle, isn’t allowing me full exercise of my right to self defense and/or the threat of tyranny.

What another commenter said was that there would be no First Amendment if the Second Amendment (or the principle on which it was founded) did not exist.

What man-governments have done to the Second Amendment, masked behind comments like, “reasonable controls,” is to continue to limit and restrict the choices of people in how they can defend themselves. Gun Free Zones outlaw freedom of choice. People who get shot and killed in a Gun Free Zone are the responsibility of every government and individual who demands and has been successful in taking away my freedom to choose how and where I can defend myself. Someday, you will have to answer for your totalitarian behavior, but for now, you will have to live with the reality of what you have done. There is blood on your hands.

Back in August I posted on this website a photograph of a hand-made sign displayed, legally, on a person’s front lawn in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. Here’s the photo:

It appears as though one Maine newspaper decided they would write a story about how the sign is racist. Upon further review, i.e. reading the article and the comments following (don’t forget to read the comments for the entertainment value and to substantiate my claim of the world’s insanity.) the world has definitely gone way off the deep end.

It seems that the word “black” needs to be stricken from the dictionary, and while we’re at it, let’s remove white, brown, red, olive, yellow…I guess any and all references to color.

My questions: Who named African Americans (if that’s the politically correct term to use) black? Who coined the term, “Black Lives Matter?” Who coined the term black rifle? And why does any of this make a bit of difference except for the fact that it involves guns? Isn’t that really the key? If the sign read, “Black Birds Matter,” would that be racist?

Back in August, I posted on this website, an announcement of a campaign called, “Black Guns Matter.” I haven’t heard of any complaints of racism in the promotion of this campaign. Is it because the person who began the campaign is black?

No, this isn’t a racist sign. It appears it’s about a man who changed one word of a well-recognized slogan, exercised his First Amendment Right to free speech, erected his sign legally, all for the purpose of pushing back against another man who doesn’t think his Second Amendment right matters. If changing the word is a crime, then all the world is guilty of taking somebody else’s slogan and using it for their own purposes. And, does a billionaire have more right to take away the Second Amendment, than a common man has at exercising his First Amendment right to protect his Second?

GEEZUS!

Those claiming it’s racist are using the sign as a distraction because they are realizing their efforts to ban the Second Amendment cannot be justified. Pulling out the race card is for LOSERS!

About all else I will say in regard to this action and reaction is that if you think this sign is racist, YOU ARE INSANE!

I hope I got your attention with that headline, and better yet, I hope none of you have cut and run assuming I’m an idiot…although I’ll concede that many of you cut and run quite some time ago.

The Second Amendment was part of the original Bill of Rights. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” From time immemorial, the intent of the Second Amendment has always been debated. Was this right granted to the “militia” or to the individual U.S. citizen…or someone else? Some seem to think that question was finally answered, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia, et. al. v. Heller. The late SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the Majority Opinion and wrote: “It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms…” However, while many in this country was celebrating this statement by Scalia, they chose to ignore, “Of course the right was not unlimited…” In reading Scalia’s opinion, he bases his claim that the Second Amendment can and should have limitations on a presumption that the Founding Fathers, when ratifying the Bill of Rights, knew that in subsequent generations, obviously unforeseen in 1791 upon ratification, certain “things” would call for changes or limitations to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. My question to Justice Scalia then would have been, if the Founding Fathers were smart enough, with enough foresight to imagine the need for “reasonable limitations” of all the rights, then why didn’t the Founding Fathers write that in the Bill of Rights?

Even though there is little in the Second Amendment text that would cause people to conclude that it has room for “limitations” into the future, how does one responsibly argue against, “shall not be infringed” and Scalia’s claim that the Fathers knew?

I’m not intending to get sidetracked, but this is important information to have and to research and study, if you are really seeking Truth.

If one is to fairly examine rights, as they were written in the Bill of Rights, it is important to take note of the efforts, since 1791, to limit the exercise of each of the original 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For lack of time and space, I will not venture into all the rights, except to use the First Amendment, specifically the Freedom of Speech right, as a comparison.

If we look at a timeline of the history of freedom of speech, in which certain laws were enacted or attempted to be enacted and failed, we see that about the only limitations in free speech we still experience today deal with obscenity. Obviously that is pretty much overlooked as such “indecent” material is readily available at just about anywhere in the United States. Even consider that at one time the U.S. banned the desecration of the American Flag, only later to have that prohibition overturned. Even though many of us Americans stand up to protect our Bill of Rights, too many of us are guilty of cherry-picking when and where to apply such rights. Perhaps the current debate in progress over whether a professional football player should be punished because he refused to stand during a pregame National Anthem, in protest…peaceably.

In total, there are perhaps a small handful of laws that limit freedom of speech, even though Justice Scalia believed that future generations would find the need for “reasonable limitations” on all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Turning to the Second Amendment, I headlined this piece as there being 3.5 million limitations to the Second Amendment. How absurd is that? Well, I really don’t know how absurd that number is but I can assure you the number of laws, all aimed at limiting our Second Amendment, is substantially larger than a small handful.

On June 18, 1981, President Ronald Reagan, after having supposedly been shot by John Hinckley, Jr. said, “There are, today, more than 20,000 gun-control laws in effect–federal, state and local–in the United States.”

The Media and all political factions, political action organizations, groups, non-profits, etc. are guilty of taking anything they find in writing and becoming an echo chamber to perpetuate it as fact. It is readily assumed that the choice to state 20,000 gun control laws existed, wasn’t and probably still isn’t the truth. But what is? Is it more than 20,000 or less than 20,000?

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, while testifying before Congress in January of 2013, told Congress, “The fact is, we could dramatically cut crime in this country with guns and save lives all over this country if we would start enforcing the 9,000 federal laws we have on the books.” So, was Reagan referring to all gun laws, i.e. federal, state and local? Did LaPierre have knowledge of how many federal laws limit the Second Amendment? Later, a spokesperson for the NRA said LaPierre misspoke, but would never give a source or correct the number.

What are we to think? The Bangor Daily News reports that, “the ATF guide to state laws… is 507 pages long and includes only laws relevant to dealers.” Maybe there are 3.5 million laws limiting a person from freely exercising their guaranteed Second Amendment Right.

We can safely conclude no less that 2 things – There are a lot of gun laws and very few of them are or can be enforced.

If we return to the First Amendment limitations for just a moment, and examine the limitations, even those that were either overturned or expired, can we make a reasonable conclusion as to the reason for the limitations? I think so. Isn’t it about public safety or protecting the public interest, even though some, if not all, laws are political in nature?

What about the Second Amendment? Can there be any other reason to want to limit the Second Amendment than for public safety? Forget the politics for a moment. Everything in life is full of political insanity. The Second Amendment is under attack most vehemently today because of political insanity. Some of that insanity is hidden behind calls for necessary and reasonable limitations on gun ownership because of public safety. After all, it is with every occurrence of a shooting that some in the public, as they are programmed to do, call for more limitations, more laws, more restrictions, all to protect the public. But to protect them from what? It seems the political posturing is of more harm to the public than an armed, unrestricted citizenry would be.

If reasonable people, of which there are few, could conclude that the majority, if not every single gun control law, was proposed and/or enacted, based upon public safety, then the question that remains is quite simple. How has the 100, 1,000, 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 or 3.5 million Second Amendment limitation laws worked out in protecting the public and ensuring public safety? I thought so.

It’s next to impossible to attempt to provide a rational list of data that shows gun crime as it relates to increased gun restrictions, mostly because the criteria changes or is changed to rig the data. A reasonable person, only needing to look around, should be able to see that with 3.5 million gun laws on the books, those laws can’t be doing much for public safety. Maybe it’s time to try something else.

*Editor’s Note* – The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [emboldening added]

One might ask why it would be necessary for any Congress to write another law that seemingly gives government the control over religious liberty – disguised as a guarantee?

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Asked to Leave Anti-Religious Freedom “Georgia Prospers” Coalition

National Center for Public Policy Research Says “Georgia Prospers” Misled Public, Policymakers About Intent and Function of Religious Liberty Legislation

Group Questions Why Home Depot Joined and Lobbies With a Group that Fought a Religious Liberty Bill So Nonpartisan, Its Model Was Drafted by the Late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

Corporations Are Being Used as Front Groups By Left-Wing Anti-Religion Coalitions, Group Says, and Asks: Are These Corporation s Pawns or Willing Accomplices?

Religious Freedom for Hundreds of Millions May Hang in the Balance

Washington, D.C. – At today’s annual meeting of Home Depot shareholders in Atlanta, Georgia, the National Center for Public Policy Research denounced the hardware giant’s affiliation with an activist group that lobbied against Georgia’s effort to protect religious freedom at the state level and asked the hardware giant’s management point-blank: “Does Home Depot oppose religious freedom?”

Home Depot is a member of Georgia Prospers, a corporate coalition that lobbied extensively – and dishonestly – against Georgia’s religious freedom bill titled “The Free Exercise Protection Act,” and cheered when Governor Nathan Deal vetoed the bill at the end of March.

“I am surprised Home Depot affiliates with a bigoted organization such as Georgia Prospers,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “While some corporate leaders such as Tim Cook of Apple and Marc Benioff of Salesforce actually oppose religious freedom, other corporate managers may be signing up to oppose certain social and political liberties without realizing all the facts. I hope that my efforts today cause Home Depot’s management to reconsider working with Georgia Prospers and its anti-religious agenda.”

At the meeting, Danhof stated:

As Georgia politicians debated whether to adopt a religious freedom bill known as “The Free Exercise Protection Act,” perhaps the biggest opponent of the bill was Georgia Prospers, a business coalition of which Home Depot is one of the most prominent members. Georgia Prospers lobbied hard against the bill and boasted when Governor Deal vetoed it, but I’m sorry to say much of its work was extremely dishonest and I truly doubt it aligns with Home Depot’s values.

In its lobbying campaign, Georgia Prospers claimed that the bill “legalized discrimination.” That’s a sensational lie.

Danhof went on to urge the company to disavow Georgia Prospers, stating:

Corporations and the mainstream media have expressed concern that religious freedom laws will lead to discrimination, in part, against homosexuals. There is zero evidence for this concern. These laws only require the government to avoid interfering with religious freedom if it can do so while still achieving important government goals – one of which, in every state of the union, is outlawing discrimination.

If Georgia Prospers does not in fact represent Home Depot and this company’s values, I urge you to reconsider your membership in this bigoted organization. Until you either withdraw your membership – or denounce Georgia Prospers on this issue – Home Depot will just be another American company that has jumped on the anti-religious bandwagon. I hope the company is better than that.

Danhof has been traveling from one shareholder meeting to the next, working to set the record straight regarding religious freedom laws. After General Electric’s shareholder meeting in April, Danhof observed that:

Religious freedom laws in the United States, whether federal or state, simply set a high bar for government action that might interfere with an individual’s deeply-held religious beliefs. To pass such an infringing law, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and if the government can reach that compelling interest by other means, the courts will direct it to use those other means. That’s all these laws do. The public debate over these laws are often void of these very basic facts.

Furthermore, the left’s newest attack on religious liberty has all the trappings of a fundraising ploy. Many liberal organizations spent years raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the fight to legalize gay marriage. Perhaps winning that battle too quickly left a hole in the movement’s pockets. In that light, it is easy to understand why it concocted this fake outrage over basic religious freedom that has been a non-controversial issue in American jurisprudence for hundreds of years and a matter of state and federal law since the early 1990s.

“I think many religious Americans have been caught off guard by the barrage of government, corporate and activist attacks on religious liberty,” said Danhof. “And for a time that was understandable. But now, from the contraceptive battles stemming from ObamaCare, to the removal of Christian societies from college campuses to these repeated attacks on state-level religious freedom restoration laws, the time for complacency is over. Religious Americans of all denominations must stand up for their convictions and confront these anti-religious elements in our society.”

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s leading voice for religious freedom when it comes to shareholder activism. In just the past few months, the Free Enterprise Project has:

• Presented a religious liberty shareholder proposal to Apple’s investors calling out the company’s hypocrisy in denouncing religious freedom in the United States while doing business in countries that persecute homosexuals. More information here, here and here.

• Presented a similar proposal to General Electric’s investors after GE CEO Jeff Immelt tried to block a state-level religious freedom bill. More information hereand here.

Danhof has also been interviewed dozens of times about the Free Enterprise Project’s efforts to promote and restore religious liberty including by the Christian Broadcasting Networkand nationally-syndicated radio host Janet Parshall.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Home Depot meeting marks its tenth shareholder meeting of 2016.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Shareholder Resolution Urges Pharmaceutical Giant to Be Respectful of ALL Groups, Including Religious Americans and Those Who Respect the First Amendment

Company Questioned at Shareholder Meeting for Doing Business Where Homosexuality is Illegal While Posing as An Ally with Gay, Lesbian and Gender Identity Activist Groups in the United States

Indianapolis, IN / Washington, D.C. – At today’s annual meeting of Eli Lilly shareholders in Indianapolis, Indiana, the National Center for Public Policy Research presented a liberty-based shareholder resolution in response to the company’s activism against state-level religious freedom laws.

“Eli Lilly is acting with extreme duplicity. The pharmaceutical giant has joined with the leftist mob that falsely claims that religious freedom laws are avenues for discrimination of homosexuals. Yet, while it bemoans state religious freedom laws here in America, it has done business with nations that actively discriminate against homosexuals, women and just about every conceivable minority group,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Today, our shareholder proposal called out the company’s hypocrisy.”

Speaking on behalf of the National Center’s proposal, Danhof stated, in part:

Corporations and the mainstream media have expressed concern that religious freedom laws will lead to discrimination, in part, against homosexuals. There is zero evidence for this concern. These laws only require the government to avoid interfering with religious freedom if it can do so while still achieving important government goals – one of which, in every state of the union, is outlawing discrimination. The company’s spokesman stated: “One of our long-held values is respect for people, and that value factors strongly into our position. We want all our current and future employees to feel welcome where they live.”

Our proposal takes Lilly up on this. Eli Lilly has operated in many nations where homosexuality is outlawed. In some of those countries, homosexual acts are punishable by death. Women have almost no rights in some of these places. And try getting a fair trial in many of these nations.

The full text of Danhof’s remarks at the Eli Lilly meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

“As the national debate over religious freedom laws began last year in Indiana – and Lilly is one of the biggest companies in the Hoosier State – it deserves a fair share of the blame for the anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping the nation,” added Danhof. “When Georgia recently tried to pass a similar law, that state’s governor made the spineless decision to veto it after many corporations including Coca-Cola and the National Football League complained.”

“I find it very curious that many leftist politicians, organizations and commentators in the media have spent the better part of the past six years bemoaning corporate involvement in political activity. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC (which simply affirmed that corporations and unions have First Amendment free speech rights), to hear liberal talking heads tell it, the world would stop spinning due to corporate involvement in political activities. But when corporations such as Eli Lilly and Coca-Cola use their bully pulpits to spew invectives regarding religious freedom laws, the left cheers corporate involvement in the political process,” said Danhof. “This is the hallmark of a movement that lacks basic principles.”

“Liberal shareholder activists have filed hundreds of shareholder resolutions over the past few years and spent untold sums to denounce corporate involvement in any political or policy activity that might be considered conservative,” said Danhof. “But they have no problem with corporations using their power to advance far-left agendas.”

“Eli Lilly is violating a basic principle of business,” added Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Don’t disrespect your customers, lest they disrespect you in return. Eli Lilly might claim its activism on lesbian and gay rights and gender identity issues was done to be inclusive, but the path Eli Lilly chose unnecessarily excluded others. The religious protections Eli Lilly opposed have been around for years. Everyone’s rights and freedoms could have been respected.”

“Eli Lilly does business in places where people have no basic civil rights,” Ridenour continued, “including the right to practice the religion of their choice. In that light, I suppose it is not odd that the company is standing against the continuation of long-held religious protection laws here in America. It appears likely that religious freedom is not its thing. Standing up for it certainly isn’t.”

The National Center’s complete shareholder resolution, and Eli Lilly’s response to it, can be found on pages 56 and 57 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.

Eli Lilly petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking to block the National Center’s proposal. However, the National Center’s legal team, also led by Danhof, prevailed in convincing the SEC that its proposal was so significant that the company’s shareholders should have a say on the matter.

The entire legal exchange between Eli Lilly and the National Center, along with the SEC’s decision, can be downloaded here.

After Danhof presented a similar proposal ton General Electric’s investors last week, he also made these observations about the current state of the national debate over religious freedom laws:

“Religious freedom laws in the United States, whether federal or state, simply set a high bar for government action that might interfere with an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs. To pass such an infringing law, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and if the government can reach that compelling interest by other means, the courts will direct it to use those other means. That’s all these laws do. The public debate over these laws are often void of these very basic facts.”

“Furthermore, the left’s newest attack on religious liberty has all the trappings of a fundraising ploy. Many liberal organizations spent years raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the fight to legalize gay marriage. Perhaps winning that battle too quickly left a hole in the movement and the pockets of pro-gay marriage leaders. In that light, it is easy to understand why they concocted this fake outrage over basic religious freedom that has been a non-controversial issue in American jurisprudence for hundreds of years and a matter of state and federal law since the early 1990s.”

Earlier this year, Danhof presented a similar proposal to Apple. For more information about those meetings and shareholder resolutions, see here, here and here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Eli Lilly meeting marks its seventh shareholder meeting of 2016.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

People should ask why it is that the Second Amendment is fair game for infringement – “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”

I have often said that if an honest person is interested in protecting constitutional rights, more than likely they will find themselves among strange company. A right is a right….isn’t it?

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And yet, this nation has spent billions of dollars infringing on this right and billions of dollars protecting other rights. I personally know of no organization, that sucks millions of dollars out of the population for their cause, that practices in the protection of the Second Amendment without infringements. Why?

The Second Amendment seems front and center, one more time and one more time we read and hear from the Press and other anti-Second Amendment tyrants, about masses of American citizens eager to expand background checks in order that any person can exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Background checks is registration of guns. People kid themselves, much because they choose to have faith in this corrupt government and believe that when the U.S. Government carries out a background check, information about the person being checked, for gun purchase, is not shared…but it is stored. Therefore, it is a gun registration act. While the check may not contain the information about the gun, it does record that an individual purchased a gun. It will also track, each and every time a person buys a gun.

When argument is made that the requirement of a background check infringes upon a person’s constitutional right, this is most often rebutted by people who state that a background check does not prohibit a person from buying and owning a gun. While not completely true in making such a statement, what is never discussed is that it is not written and surely was not the intent of the Bill of Rights, that a person had to register with the state in order to be able to exercise a constitutional right. Doing so would be an utterly ridiculous idea. Wouldn’t it? Do we have to register to deliver a speech? Would you deem it acceptable to have to get a license to make sure your home isn’t unlawfully entered and searched by government? Would you find it okay to get a license to attend the church of your choice?

I repeat: Government requiring a background check is gun registration. It is at its simplest form an onus placed on the individual, in what must be done in order to exercise a right. That in and of itself can be argued as unconstitutional. This also applies to the act to get licensed/registered to carry a concealed weapon. Disguised as something promoting safety, the registration becomes necessary in order to exercise your Second Amendment right.

Michael Bloomberg, and his little fascists, have invaded the State of Maine, in order to get a referendum placed on a ballot that would implement a draconian law that would require background checks on any and all gun sales and transfers. It’s so absurd that being in someone’s house, let’s say while they were away on vacation, and the house had a gun(s) in it. Both the owner and you would be guilty of failing to get a background check before the “transfer” was made. Yeah, it’s ridiculous.

Background checks is another example of gun registration. Some argue that it will lead to gun registration. They fail to see that it already is a form of gun registration. What happens now when you go buy a new gun? It’s being registered. What happens now if you purchase ammunition and use your credit or debit card? You’ve just “registered” yourself as buying ammunition, which is necessary in order to fully exercise your Second Amendment right.

Yesterday, I spent a great deal of time reading and researching about this unconstitutional act to INFRINGE upon the rights of others. In my reading, I saw references made to Supreme Court rulings about the unconstitutionality of requiring some form of registration in order to exercise a right.

InThomas v. Collins, 1945, Thomas traveled to Texas to deliver a speech before a group of people lawfully assembled to learn about forming a union. His duty was that only of speaking. Local officials presented Thomas with a restraining order that prohibited him to attend this function and deliver his speech. After consulting his attorney he went ahead and made his speech but was charged with breaking the law because he did not obtain the proper “licenses” to recruit people to a union. The case found it’s way to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Rutledge. The appeal was based on what was believed to be an infringement upon his First Amendment Right of free speech. Justice Rutledge in part stated: “The restraint is not small when it is considered what was restrained. The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. There is some modicum of freedom of thought, speech and assembly which all citizens of the Republic may exercise throughout its length and breadth, which no State, nor all together, nor the Nation itself, can prohibit, restrain or impede. If the restraint were smaller than it is, it is from petty tyrannies that large ones take root and grow. This fact can be no more plain than when they are imposed on the most basic rights of all. Seedlings planted in that soil grow great and, growing, break down the foundations of liberty.”

The SCOTUS determined that it was unlawful to limit, through registration, freedom of speech in this case. The local regulations required those who assembled and conducted union forming business, obtain permits to do so. They did. It was believed that because Thomas was to speak to the assembled group, he could have his First Amendment rights restricted because he didn’t obtain a permit first.

You also cannot restrict a constitutional right based on what might happen. Can you?

We see a similar restriction of the First Amendment in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 1965. In this case, before the SCOTUS, the challenge came as the result of a postal requirement (law) that the post office would not deliver certain “unsealed” mail unless the recipient first “registered” to receive this mail. This was ruled by the court as a First Amendment infringement because it required a “registration” in order to exercise one’s First Amendment.

In Justice Douglas’ majority opinion, he states: “We conclude that the Act [the requirement to register in order to receive perceived unwanted mail] as construed and applied is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee’s First Amendment rights.”

Something so simple as this and yet the Courts will seemingly go out of their way to protect at least the First Amendment while stripping the Second Amendment to shreds.

If readers can see beyond the end of their noses, they might find the third case an interesting one and an example of how any kind of gun registration can be self-incriminating (Fifth Amendment).

In Haynes v. United States, 1968, Haynes was charged with the violation of 26 U.S.C. 5851(part of the National Firearms Act) because he failed to register a weapon the state had determined to be undesirable, and wanting registration of such a weapon for the purpose of taxation. Haynes contended that the requirement to register his gun would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The majority opinion in this case, while having some issues with the National Firearms Act, found that: “We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.”

The SCOTUS ruled that the requirement to register a firearm, the act of which would incriminate the registrant, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

All of these cases are complicated and full of extenuating circumstances. However, the broader issue here is the effort of the Courts to protect certain constitutional rights while infringing on others, namely the Second Amendment.

It would therefore seem to me, that background checks, being a form of registration, is forcing people to undergo a registration in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. According to these cases, and the context to which those decisions by the Supreme Court were made, makes gun registration unlawful.

Consider the context of the rulings. Simple events like registering with local authorities before delivering a speech, or returning a simple postal card letting the service know whether you wanted to receive questionable materials, where consider such grave infringements, they were done away with in order to protect First Amendment rights.

In the third case, we see where, because of ill-written guns laws, even though a gun may be in a person’s possession without being registered, the protection of the Fifth Amendment and a person’s protective right against self-incrimination, that right being more important than the registration of a gun.

Then why is it that we allow the continued infringements on the Second Amendment? Every time you and I or your neighbor, or the NRA or anybody else says, reasonable restrictions on buying and owning guns are necessary and responsible, we cannot see that these actions are an infringement and therefore is a destruction of the right.

We are not dealing with rational lawmakers and lawyers. Because of much complacency and a willingness of American’s to allow central government to infringe on our Second Amendment, current laws and policies that set precedence, in this day and age of corruption and total disregard of the constitution, become the rule of law. Although executive actions by a sitting president can be overturned, the precedent exists and therefore carries some kind of authority into the future.

We know the Press/Media/Journalists, etc. will fight tooth and nail to protect their First Amendment rights. They will use that right to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

It is, however, very clear that the Second Amendment is fair game for destruction. Those wishing to destroy it, offer no respect to those of us who find it extremely valuable – even to the value that it may be the last fortress that is protecting all the other rights.

I just wonder how these same mental midget, emotional Second Amendment destroyers will see things when their prized right is taken away from them? When it is, it will NOT be because I worked to destroy them.